Weapons+of+Mass+Destruction

Hank Duncan CCGA Mr. Goodale September 27, 2011

Weapons of Mass Destruction  As you know, most sovereign nations have weapons of mass destruction. When you hear the term “weapons of mass destruction” you probably think about hydrogen bombs, atomic bombs, etc. The real definition of weapons of mass destruction is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g buildings). The evolution of the term has changed and been disputed throughout history, but often more politically than technically.  The main question at hand is if we think it is ok for sovereign super powers to be able to manufacture and possess these “weapons of mass destruction” like nuclear warheads and hydrogen bombs. A lot of people have many different opinions on this matter, but the two most basic ones, simply being, they are or aren’t necessary. If I were asked this question, then I would be mostly against the great nations, or anyone for that matter, to be able to harness the almighty power of a nuclear warhead. To me, the only reason to have a weapon of such magnitude is if someone else had one that they could threaten you with. Now every super power has them and they basically cancel out everyone else because if nation X threatens to fire on nation Y then Y would threaten to fire on nation X, and then X’s buddy would then threaten to fire on Y, and THEN y’s buddy would threaten x and so on and so forth. If they never such power in the first place, then, I would say the whole situation would be leveled out without having to worry about mass genocide on a national level. When you think about it, why does such a weapon exist in the first place? I know you might go back and argue President Truman decision to drop the atomic bombs and say “That was the only thing he could do in the current situation”.. but was it really? This issue may not have many people’s attention, but I think more people need to become aware of what this problem could mean for even the existence of humanity as a whole. People should not take this issue lightly because it could lead to another cold war, I think. But I am aware there are some alternative viewpoints other than my own. Some people actually support the idea of nations to have their own arsenal of WMD’s. People argue that nukes are essential for many nations to have. Why? While they are used for mass genocide we should still have them or our own country’s protection against other threatening nations. Other nations that are at war with us would be less likely to attack us if they know that we would be willing to use nuclear force against them (or at least threaten to). Fortunately we don’t have to worry about running out of nukes because the United States currently has 12,500 nuclear warheads in stock. Decades of arms control negotiations have reduced the number of nukes around the planet. Since 1991 the U.S Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program has successfully deactivated 6,032 nuclear warheads. In 2000, five nuclear weapons states France, China, Russia, Britain and the U.S deemed a 23-point joint statement pledging their commitment to the ultimate goal of complete disarmament under strict and effective international controls. However though, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea did not sign to the act. Recently North Korea announced it was continuing its nuclear arms program. The U.S isn’t so much worried about it, but they are worried about them selling them to the highest bidder, like terrorism sponsored groups like Al-Qaeda. But I think as long as the nuclear warhead has been invented, there will never be a solution to getting rid of them once and for all. Even if all of the nuclear super powers made a treaty to destroy all of them, they would all have their own small hidden backup stockpile. And I’m not all against living in a nation with nuclear warheads, there just needs to be better control of other nations who also possess them. Should nations be allowed to have WMD stockpiles under heavy supervision? My answer in short is no, even though I know that will never happen. I know opposing viewpoints argue against this for good reasons, but I know when it comes down to it, bombs that can devastate an entire nation are not, and will never be necessary. There really isn’t any need to prove my point. When Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it ended WWII. But it did so at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent people’s lives, just like you and me. I think we can all agree that it doesn’t need to happen ever again. And that Is why I feel that my stance is correct.

[|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction#Ethics] [] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76887,00.html